Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32088 of 2019
Applicant :- Suman Devi And Anr
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet No.01 dated 21.01.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal Case No.11633 of 2019 (State vs. Suman Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No.057 of 2018, u/s 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of learned C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for the applicants is that after coming to know about the correct facts, the applicant has himself lodged a report against Gaya Prasad which shows his bonafide intentions. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
A perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the opposite party no. 2 had lodged the F.I.R. of the present case against the applicants as well as three other co-accused persons with the allegations that he along with his brother Saurabh Sharma and one Smt. Anita Gupta had purchased the plot in dispute from the applicants for a consideration of Rs. 37 lakh. The major amount of the said consideration money was paid through demand draft after obtaining loan from the bank to the applicant no.2 in the presence of the applicant no.1. Several other expenses were also born by the first informant and his associates. The sale deed was duly registered before the Registrar, Kanpur Nagar on 30.1.2018 in which the applicant no. 1 was the vendor. Later on the first informant came to know that the applicants were not the legal owners of the said plot rather the said plot in dispute was allotted by Kanpur Development Authority in the name of Smt. Meera Sachan. It was also came to the knowledge of the first informant that on the basis of some forged power of attorney some illegal transactions were done and now the applicants, in conspiracy with other co-accused persons, had committed fraud and had taken huge amount from the first informant and other co-purchasers for the land which, in fact, does not belong to her. During investigation the Investigating Officer had recorded statement of first informant as well as other co-purchasers namely Saurabh Sharma and Smt. Anita Gupta, who had substantiated the allegations made in the F.I.R. During investigation the Investigating Officer had also contacted Kanpur Development Authority and in that regard a written information was tendered by the Kanpur Development Authority that the plot in question was originally allotted to Smt. Meera Sachan on 14.9.2001. As per record aforesaid Smt. Meera Sachan had not executed any power of attorney in favour of one Shivbaran. Smt. Meera Sachan in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated in an unequivocal terms that the said power of attorney allegedly made by her in favour of Shivbaran is a forged document and at no point of time she had executed any such power of attorney. She had also stated that she was the original allottee of the plot and since long she is running from pillar to post to get her plot but neither the authority had executed any sale deed in her favour nor had paid any heed to her applications and several applications which she had made to Kanpur Development Authority showing her willingness to deposit the installments and to get registry in her favour.
A perusal of the record would further reveal that on the basis of forged power of attorney the plot in question was sold to one Virendra Singh, who later on registered sale deed in favour of one Gaya Prasad on 31.7.2013. The aforesaid Gaya Prasad had executed registered sale deed in favour of the applicant no.1 Smt. Suman Devi on 28.8.2014 which was again transferred to the opposite party no.2 and other co-purchasers through registered sale deed dated 30.1.2018. Smt. Meera Sachan who is the real allottee, had stated that she had never executed any power of attorney nor had authorized to anyone to sell out her plot. Even the F.I.R. on behalf of the applicant was lodged against Gaya Prasad and others on 04.4.2018 only when the present dispute arose and her bank account was freezed on the complaint made by the first informant of the present case. The Investigating Officer after conducting full fledged and fair investigation on the basis of statement of the first informant and the witnesses as well as on the basis of perusal of other documents, found that the applicants had committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C. and therefore, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections has been filed against them. Learned Magistrate after perusing the documents including the case diary had taken cognizance on the charge sheet.
The submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019
M. Kumar/Naresh